|
In the recent case of
Berghuis v. Thompkins (U.S. Supreme Court, June 1, 2010)
involved a shooting of two men in Southfield, Michigan. One
of the victims died. Van Chester Thompkins was arrested one
year later in Ohio.
A person who is in
custody has two fundamental constitutional protections: the
right to remain silent and the right to counsel.
In the 1966 case of Miranda
v. Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court required law
enforcement to advise a person in police custody of these
constitutional rights. The notice of these rights has
become known as the “Miranda Rights.”
While waiting to be transported
back to Michigan, Thompkins was read his Miranda Rights.
Thompkins remained silent through most of his interrogation
that lasted approximately three hours. However, Mr.
Thompkins did supply detectives with limited verbal
responses e.g. “yeah,” “no,” “I don’t know,” etc.
The detectives
involved in the interrogation stated, that the defendant did
not say he wanted an attorney, not to speak to the police,
or that he wanted to invoke his right to remain silent.
Towards the end of the interrogation a Detective asked
Thompkins “Did he believe in God?”
Thompkins stated, “Yes that he
did believe in God.”
Then he was asked, “Did he
pray?”
The defendant again replied
“Yes.”
The detective went even farther
to ask Thompkins, “Did he pray to God to forgive him for
shooting that boy down?”
Thompkins simply replied “Yes.”
Thompkins refused to make a written confession, and the
interrogation ended shortly after his refusal.
The defendant was later charged
with first degree murder, assault with intent to commit
murder, and firearm-related charges. Thompkins moved to
suppress his statements made, arguing that he had invoked
his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
He also argued that he did not
waive his right to remain silent, and the statements that he
made were involuntary, and the detectives should have ended
the interrogation.
The U.S. Supreme
Court held that had Thompkins
stated that he wanted to remain silent, and not
speak with the police he would have invoked his right to
remain silent. In other words, you now have to state
clearly and unambiguously that you are invoking your right
to remain silent. You cannot assume that just being silent
is enough. If you answer any questions, including “trick
questions”, your answers will likely be used against you.
Involuntary confessions cannot be used against you. It does
not take much, however, for a prosecutor to establish a
voluntary waiver. The Thompkins case makes the
prosecution’s even job easier.
In
order for the prosecution to show that an accused person has
waived his right to remain silent, they must first show that
the waiver was “voluntary in the sense that it was the
product of a free and deliberate choice rather than
intimidation, coercion, or deception,” and was “made with a
full awareness of both the nature of the right being
abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon
it.”
There is no evidence that Thompkins’ statement
was coerced. Thompkins did not argue that the police
threatened, injured or made him feel fearful in any way.
The
interrogation was found to be held within its standards, the
conditions of the interrogation were normal. Thompkins was
asked a question regarding his religious beliefs that did
not require a response. The Fifth Amendment, the Supreme
Court said, “is not concerned with moral and psychological
pressures to confess emanating from sources other than
official coercion.”
Sadly, the Court
held that Thompkins knowingly and
voluntarily made a statement to the police; therefore he
waived his right to remain silent.
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the
Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and
Alito joined. Justice Sotomayor, filed a dissenting opinion,
in which Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined.
Again, the Supreme
Court appears divided along party lines with the largely
Republican-appointed/conservative justices, forming a
majority to hand down a decision which appears to limit how
an accused can claim the protections guaranteed by the U.S.
Constitution.
The impact of this decision will
likely be felt most adversely by the poor and the less
educated accused that are not aware of how important these
rights are and now, how easily those rights might be waived.
Charles A. McKinney, is an
attorney with offices in Toledo, Dayton, Columbus, and
Hamilton, Ohio
|
